| Posted by AzaraT, 10-14-2012, 11:17 AM | | Hi,
Just a quick question about the cPanel DNS cluster feature. Is it possible to have ns1 hosted on a normal cPanel server (i.e the main server with all websites hosted on) and then have ns2 hosted on a cPanel DNS only server?
Or do I need to have NS1 and NS2 on two different servers both being DNS only?
Thanks
|
| Posted by TravisT-[SSS], 10-14-2012, 12:57 PM | | You can run DNS just fine with regular CPanel.
|
| Posted by BestServerSupport, 10-15-2012, 10:02 AM | | Yes, you can have ns1 hosted on a normal cPanel server and then have ns2 hosted on a cPanel DNS only server.
|
| Posted by Server Management, 10-15-2012, 10:09 AM | | Yes you can do this but you will still need to have named/bind enabled locally which defeats the purpose of having this kind of setup anyway.
To be honest doing this will offer you next to no benefits either to regards of your dns setup.
Regards,
|
| Posted by foobic, 10-15-2012, 08:43 PM | | I disagree. Having a real second nameserver is a huge improvement on the standard cPanel both-nameservers-on-the-one-server setup. Whether you achieve it like this or with two completely independent nameservers is very much a secondary consideration. Provided the main server has the capacity to handle its share of DNS traffic along with everything else, why not use it?
|
| Posted by RRWH, 10-15-2012, 08:46 PM | | Yes - NS1 can be on your Main Server and get a 512Meg VPS to run NS2 on - Ideally, get the VPS at a different Data Centre than where your main Server is located at. Heck, as a VPS is only $10/mth get 2 and run 3 DNS servers in your cluster.
|
| Posted by Server Management, 10-15-2012, 08:47 PM | | Am a firm believer of "if your going to do at least do it right" and setting up "half" a cluster isn't doing it right in my opinion...
|
| Posted by foobic, 10-15-2012, 08:56 PM | | You're welcome to your opinion but saying it offers "next to no benefits" is just plain wrong. Ok, that's because the default system is pretty awful, but still...
|
| Posted by Server Management, 10-16-2012, 11:56 AM | | Its plain wrong in your opinion but still you hit the nail on the here:
"Ok, that's because the default system is pretty awful"
You'll still have to run named/bind locally and still use a local nameserver so the benefits it will add are slim either way...
|
| Posted by foobic, 10-16-2012, 01:01 PM | | 1. I don't understand why you think it's so bad to run bind (or other nameserver) locally. It has to run on at least two servers somewhere, why shouldn't one of them also be your webserver?
2. Default setup: 1 nameserver, no redundancy. Proposed setup: 2 nameservers, redundancy. Do you seriously think that's a "slim benefit"?
|
| Posted by Martin-D, 10-16-2012, 01:29 PM | | Many webhosts do this to start with, nothing wrong with it at all. It does offer benefits from hosting DNS only on the main hosting server.
So to answer the OP, yes it is possible and yes, it is entirely acceptable!
|
|
 Add to Favourites
 Print this Article
|
